Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff Norton sued Defendant Snapper Power Equipment after four of his fingers were amputated by the blades of a lawn mower manufactured by Snapper.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The test for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the same as the test for granting a directed verdict.
Whether a product is in an unreasonably dangerous defective condition is a question of fact.View Full Point of Law
Issue. When should a court grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict?
Held. Only where the evidence so strongly and so favorably points in the favor of the moving party that reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The judgment notwithstanding the verdict was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court. Defendant correctly pointed out that plaintiffs are not entitled to a verdict based on speculation and conjecture, but the jury is permitted to reconstruct the series of events by drawing an inference upon an inference.
Discussion. Defendant contended that the jury could not determine whether a safety device on the mower could have eliminated or lessened Plaintiff’s injury. However, after reviewing the law on product defects, the Appellate court concluded that the jury could have reasonably found the mower defective. Defendant was given every opportunity to point out the weaknesses in Plaintiff’s proof, but was unpersuasive.